Since its takeover by Elon Musk in 2022, Twitter, renamed X, has undergone major upheavals. The structural, functional and ideological changes brought about by its owner have given rise to numerous controversies and questions, particularly for companies and institutions that used the platform as an essential communication lever. As X continues to polarize opinion, the question arises: can – and, above all, should – a communications strategy do without this platform?

An essential but evolving platform

Created in 2006, Twitter has rapidly established itself as one of the most influential platforms for sharing information in real time. Its concise format and popular hashtags have made it a preferred tool for companies, media and public figures looking to interact directly with their audiences. However, since its takeover, X has seen its landscape radically transformed. Elon Musk’s controversial decisions, such as the abolition of automated moderation, the introduction of a paid subscription for account verification and the reintegration of controversial media figures, have sown doubts among professional users. Many are questioning the sustainability and relevance of remaining on a platform where rules change frequently and user trust seems to be eroding.

Advantages and limitations of X for communication

Despite these upheavals, X remains a space where millions of users share, comment on and consume content every day. For brands and companies, it retains certain undeniable assets:

1. Instant visibility: With its 500 million daily messages, X remains a powerful platform for making your voice heard, especially during major announcements or crises.
2. Direct interactivity: Few social networks enable such rapid and transparent interaction between a brand and its audience.
3. Virality: well-crafted content can quickly reach a wide audience through retweets and trending.

However, these advantages are now outweighed by significant limitations:

• Platform instability: frequent policy and algorithm changes can make it difficult to implement a coherent strategy.
• The decline of moderation: Hate speech and misinformation have multiplied, tarnishing the image of the platform and, potentially, that of the companies active on it.
• Audience fragmentation: some users have migrated to alternatives such as Mastodon, Threads or Bluesky, reducing the universality of X.

What are the alternatives for companies?

Faced with these challenges, companies need to reassess their dependence on X and consider alternative solutions. Several alternatives are emerging:

1. Channel diversification: Leveraging other social networks such as LinkedIn, Instagram or TikTok enables us to reach different audiences, while reducing the risk of being caught off guard by sudden changes on a single platform.
2. Invest in emerging platforms: Mastodon, Threads or even Substack Notes attract specific audiences, particularly in the technological and journalistic fields.
3. Reinforce proprietary channels: Newsletters, blogs and websites remain reliable tools for distributing content without depending on the vagaries of third-party platforms.
4. Prioritize press relations and SEO: A strong media presence and a well thought-out SEO strategy can compensate for a drop in activity on social networks.

Should we leave X?

The answer depends on each company’s objectives. Leaving X without a clear replacement strategy can result in a loss of visibility and interaction. However, persisting on an unstable and controversial platform can also damage brand image. For many, the choice lies in a hybrid approach: remaining active on X, while gradually reducing dependency by developing other channels. In conclusion, X remains a platform with great potential, but one whose use requires increased vigilance. Companies need to ask themselves an essential question: do the benefits still justify the risks and efforts? If the answer is uncertain, it may be time to look elsewhere.